"C-14 dating (and every other form of radioisotope dating) relies on two unproven, untestable assumptions: 1) The naturally occuring ratio of the radioactive element to the resulting element(s) has always been the same as it is now; 2) The rate of decay has always been the same as it is now. As for the first, at least three commonly accepted phenomena would affect the formation of radioactive materials. 1) Young-earth creationists commonly accept the existence of a canopy of water (in some form) above the atmosphere during the first 2000 years or so of the earth's existence. This would greatly cut down the amount of radiation (and concurrently, the amount of radioactive materials formed), resulting. 2) Evolutionists commonly accept a cataclysmic event of some sort (meteor collision, etc.) which altered the climate enough to kill the dinosaurs. If such an event can block enough sunlight/heat to change the climate, it would also block radiation, with results similar to the above. 3) The earth's magnetic field is weakening, resulting in lessening protection from radiation. A stronger field in the past would mean less radiation/less radioactives production (now it sounds like SE4 )."
Excuse me while I go try and find the formation of the various isotopes used for dating..I know C-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere, but I don't think say Uranium would be affected by this. C-14 is only valid for a couple thousand years at best anyway.
"Any decrease in the ratio of radioactive elements would result in exponential increases in the dates obtained, since the rate of decay is used as the constant in the formula. No extant radioisotope dating method addresses, or can address, this problem; any dates obtained from them are inherently questionable and unverifiable (i.e., not empirical "scientific" proof)."
Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results. The effect wouldn't be exponential, either. Start with, say, 9 grams instead of 9, half-life of 5000 years:
10/9
5/4.5
2.5/2.25
1.25/1.125
.625/.5625
Notice that the ratio you're off by at any given time is *exactly* the same as the ratio you're off by when you started.
"First, let me define which biological evolution I do and do not believe in. Micro-evolution (variation within species/sub-species) does occur. These are frequently the result of mutations. Inter-species evolution has never been observed, either in live organisms or in the fossil record, and has never been the result of mutations."
Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens? (that Last statement is as much of a jump as what you're accusing others of BTW)
Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between..
"Several experiments by several scientistshave been done in this field. 1) Herman Bumpus found that survival rates were higher for specimens closest to the average for a species. Sub-species are less hardy, not more, than the original species."
Consistant with a species being well-adapted to it's enviroment; change anything and it's less well adapated, unless you get obscenely lucky.
"2) The "saltation" theory of mutations was based on an observational error. Its author, Hugo deVries was unable to substantiate it. Later, it was discovered that the vast majority of plant varieties are caused by gene factor variations, rarely by mutations. Gene factor varieties may be hardy (though still less than the original), while mutation varieties have poor survival rates."
Gene factor: are you refering to the variation produced by sexual reproduction here?
") Thomas Hunt Morgan performed the first set of mutation experiments, but failed to find any examples of mutation as an agent of cross-species evolution."
I don't think they -could- be, directly. It doesn't make sense. (and what the hell is cross-species evolution? Macroevolution, or what you earlier refered to as inter-species evolution?)
"4) H.J. Muller experimented with X-ray-induced mutations in fruit flies for 19 years. Every mutation he and his researchers found was harmful."
Hmm. For one, X-rays aren't the only way to get mutations; DNA can be changed in other ways, and the repair systems don't always catch it. However this ussually only matters in two cases: if it affects a reproductive cell and/or if it leads to a cancer. Wacking a random skin cell doesn't do too much. For the other I'd have to do more research.
"5) Richard Goldschmidt conducted similar experiments at UC-Berkeley. He produced more generations of fruit flies than is hypothesized have existed for humans and their ape-ancestors. After 25 years, he began looking for other possible mechanisms for evolution. After 10 more years (1940), he wrote a book debunking all current mechanisms of biological evolution and introduced his own theory: macro-evolution (aka "punctuated equilibrium" or "hopeful monster" theory). This theory later was adopted by such prominent evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould."
1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance. You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?
"Species variation does not prove cross-species evolution. It may be penicillin-resistant E. coli, but it's still E. coli."
I always assume in these arguments that I'm dealing with a Bible-literal "nothing ever changes" person until told otherwise.
"My problem with this is two-fold. First, it's not taught as a "best guess," but rather as fact. Open any high-school, middle-school, or elementary science textbook and read the first paragraph: "Billions of years ago,..." The entire Eohippus series is still included, even though Eohippus is now thought to be a type of badger probably still alive in Africa (the daman), not to mention that it's been found right alongside Equus. Even embryonic recapitulation is frequently taught."
I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.
"Second, evolutionists operate under the assumption that evolution is true. Consider the Indian carvings of dinosaurs on the Grand Canyon walls. In the 1920s when they were discovered, it was said that they resembled dinosaurs, but they definitely couldn't be, since we knew dinosaurs died out millions of years before man came along. If that's true, then how did the Indians know what they looked like? Belief in evolution despite any evidence to the contrary cripples scientific research, not enables it."
OK, few comments on this:
-people gennerally assume their worldview is correct, and try to make everything else fit. Yes, this includes scientists. File it under the "yep, they screwed up" catagory. Happens a lot.
-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.
Phoenix-D